Why no F/24 -34?

Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35?

Thanks

Michael wrote:

Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35?


http://www.designation-systems.net/u....html#_MDS_F35

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

Why has the AF chosen to jump fighter designations from 22 to 35?


The USAF didn't make that choice. An undersecretary of defense who was
clueless about the designation system screwed up. The X-32 and X-35 were
not prototypes, they were technology demonstrators. Whichever one of them
won the JSF contract, the resulting aircraft was to be designated the F-24.
(F-24 was next in line, the F-23 was the Northrop bid that lost to the
F-22.) When the winner of the JSF competition was announced the
undersecretary was asked what the new aircraft would be designated. He
screwed up, saying it would be the F-35 because the X-35 had won the
competition. Rather than make him look stupid the JSF officially became the
F-35.

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The USAF didn't make that choice. An undersecretary of defense who
was clueless about the designation system screwed up.

For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71.

Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71."

Change the name...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71.

Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71."

Change the name...


Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71.

Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71."

Change the name...

It wasn't LBJ's fault - see

http://www.designation-systems.net/u...html#_MDS_SR71


Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system.

Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a "special"
designation in the regulation of 1962.

Andreas

In article , Andreas Parsch
wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

For another example, look at the world-famous RS-71.

Oops, Lyndon Johnson called it the "SR-71."

Change the name...

It wasn't LBJ's fault - see

http://www.designation-systems.net/u...html#_MDS_SR71


Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system.

Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a "special"
designation in the regulation of 1962.

And it was to have been preceded by the RS-70, a version of the B-70 that
didn't get bought/built.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Of course, RS-71 wouldn't have fit any better into the designation system.

Why not, at least R stands for recce stuff.


Qman

"Qman" wrote in message ...

Why not, at least R stands for recce stuff.


Yes, but S stands for antisubmarine, and the -71 is out of the bomber
series.

"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message
...

Technically, it would. The "RS" prefix was explicitly allowed as a
"special" designation in the regulation of 1962.


Well, that's the point. If it had fit the designation system a "special"
designation wouldn't have been needed.